The short version
- Justice Minister Emilie Enger Mehl (Sp) told the Storting that there was a requirement for double authorization for local employees in the Police Security Service (PST), but an assignment letter from 2017 shows that there was only a requirement for one authorization.
- The Ministry of Justice has denied VG access to this letter of assignment several times.
- Øyvind Tenold lost his job as PST leader when he did not attend a second authorization interview, when he was already authorized for the position. He believes that the requirement for double authorization was contrived to get rid of him, after he notified police director Benedicte Bjørnland.
- Storting representative Ingvild Wetrhus Thorsvik (V) demands an answer from Justice Minister Mehl, who still has not clarified which rules apply.
- Deputy head of the Police Union, Ørjan Hjortland, says uncertainty about the regulations is serious and he expects clarifications from the Ministry of Justice.
View more
At the latest in March, the Minister of Justice informed the Storting that there is a requirement that all local employees in the Police Security Service (PST) must be authorized An authorization is an approval that must be obtained from the authorization officer in the business in order to gain access to security-rated information and access to objects and infrastructure worthy of shielding.twice.
The background is the dismissal of police chief Øyvind Tenold, who refused to attend an authorization interview with PST in 2020. Therefore, he was stripped of his security clearance – and lost his job as head of PST West.
Tenold believes the demand was concocted to get rid of him after he had sent a notice to Norway’s most powerful police leader: Director of Police and former PST chief Benedicte Bjørnland.
On Thursday, the central employment council in the police will deal with Tenold’s complaint about the dismissal.
Now VG can reveal that a previously unknown document shows that only one authorization was required when Øyvind Tenold was to be authorised.
This appears in an authorization letter sent from the Ministry of Justice to the Norwegian Police Directorate in 2017:
«It is the individual chief of police who is responsible for compliance with the Security Act.”
The Ministry of Justice responds on Friday afternoon that they not believes there is a contradiction between what Mehl has said in the Storting and what is in the letter.
Also read: Law professor on whistleblower case: – Looks worryingly much like retaliation
Can’t be misunderstood
VG has read parts of the document, where it is stated that employees in the PST units are the responsibility of the police chief.
– What we have seen from this document can hardly be understood in any other way than that it is established that the chief of police alone has the authorization responsibility, says Frode Sulland, lawyer for Øyvind Tenold.
In 2019, then PST chief Hans Sverre Sjøvold also referred to the assignment letter, when he was asked by police director Benedicte Bjørnland to authorize Øyvind Tenold.
Sjøvold replied that it would be “contrary to the requirements of the law» whether he, as PST manager, authorized Tenold.
In a letter to police chief Kaare Songstad in Bergen, Sjøvold wrote that an authorization from chief PST would be in danger of not being legally binding:
“PST would like to emphasize once again that the authorization interview must be carried out by the company’s manager(…). The Chief of Police in the West is the head of the business.”
– There is a marked difference between Sjøvold’s statements in November 2019, and what PST and the Minister of Justice are saying now, says Sulland.
– The e-mail confirms what Tenold has claimed for a long time, that this demand appears to be contrived to deny him reinstatement in the position, says the lawyer.
Tip us!
VG depends on good tips from our readers. Contact VG by e-mail here or by encrypted message via Signal or WhatsApp to +4792088655.
View more
Requires response from Mehl
Storting representative Ingvild Wetrhus Thorsvik (V) points out that what Mehl has said in the Storting does not correspond with the new information in the case.
– This case is becoming more and more unclear. And the answers from the Minister of Justice have so far not helped to make it clearer, says Thorsvik.
– I would therefore once again ask Mehl to answer what has actually been PST’s clearance practice.
Former PST chief Hans Sverre Sjøvold does not want to be interviewed. VG has asked the Minister of Justice to answer these questions:
- Do you still think that there was a requirement for double authorization when Øyvind Tenold was to be authorised?
- Several times you have told VG and the Storting that requirements for double authorization were introduced overtime – as of 2017. Has the minister been led astray by PST?
– It is not natural for the minister to be interviewed about letters sent from PST and conditions under the previous government, replies a communications adviser in the Ministry of Justice.
She refers to PST and their statement from November 2022, about how the new authorization practice should have been introduced.
– Does the minister still support PST’s statement?
The question is still not answered.
Also read: Several experts believe that PST requirements are illegal
The police director is silent
Current PST chief Beate Gangås also does not want to answer questions from VG. The same applies to police director Benedicte Bjørnland, who was head of PST when the requirement for double authorization was implemented – according to the timeline in PST’s statement.
VG has several times asked the director of police to confirm or deny whether she changed the authorization practice – without receiving an answer.
– Now the central employment council will take a final decision on whether I will lose my job, says Øyvind Tenold.
– He who heads the council is Bjørnland’s closest subordinate. It is incredible if she has also not informed him about what was the current practice when I was to be authorised.
Denied access twice
VG asked the ministry for access to the assignment letter already in October 2020. The refusal was justified by the fact that the document is graded confidential according to the Security Act and that it “may have damaging consequences for national security interests if they are made known to unauthorized persons.”
In autumn 2023, VG again asked for access to the letter and was refused. This time too, the ministry believed that access to the letter could damage the security of the kingdom.
Øyvind Tenold himself was given access to the part of the assignment letter that deals with authorization in April this year – 14 months after he asked the ministry for access.
– The content of the letter told me why the ministry has been so unwilling to get to the bottom of this matter, says Tenold to VG.
VG has asked the Minister of Justice why the assignment letter was kept secret from VG:
- Was it because the content contradicts what you have stated in the Storting and in VG?
- How can publicizing a job requirement in the police harm national security?
Mehl has not answered the questions. But the Ministry of Justice tells VG why Øyvind Tenold was finally given access:
“Access has been granted to a degradated version of JD’s assignment letter to POD dated 18 October 2017. This has been done after a concrete assessment in connection with the ministry’s processing of a complaint about refusal of access”.
The ministry further writes that they have wanted to share as much as possible within the framework of the Security Act.
“Therefore, in our view, there is no basis for saying that there has been an attempt at secrecy,” the response states.
Deputy head of the Police Union, Ørjan Hjortland tells VG that they are reacting to the answers received from PST and the Ministry of Justice.
– It appears very strange that the Police’s security service should have introduced rule changes “over time”, which apply to such serious matters as authorization linked to access to classified systems and documents, says Hjortland.
– It also seems strange that the then head of PST was not aware of these rule changes.
Hjortland says the case is serious because it creates uncertainty around the regulations for authorization and security clearances.
– We expect the Ministry of Justice to come up with concrete clarifications in this case.
Tags: Mehl refused access assignment letter grounds national security
-
